Who can redeem. I.e., because they are poor.
Re'm writes: But in Kiddushin (ibid.) it says, "Rather, this is someone who has [money] but does not want [to redeem], because he has permission [not to redeem]." [In fact], Rabbi Yehoshua [there] proves from this verse that the verse, "And redeems that which his brother sold," is voluntary. As he says there, "You [would] say it is voluntary. Or [perhaps] it is obligatory? The verse says, 'If the man has no redeemer.' Is there any person in Yisroel who has no redeemer? Rather, this is someone who has [money] but does not want [to redeem], he has the option [not to not redeem]." However, according to Rashi that having no redeemer means that he cannot afford it, this verse, "And redeems that which his brother sold," would be no proof that it is optional, as perhaps it is obligatory, and what is the meaning of the verse, "And redeems that which his brother sold"? That he has no redeemer who can afford it. But if so, according to
Re'm, Rashi would be contradicting himself. Because above (verse 25) Rashi explains according to the opinion that it is voluntary [to redeem], as the
Re'm explained, while here he explains according to the opinion that it is obligatory [to redeem]. Though we often find that Rashi explains sometimes like one opinion and sometimes like another even when they are apparently contradictory, but that is [only] in two [different] places [in Scripture]. But[to make such a claim that Rashi does so] in the same place like here, presents a difficulty. Therefore, it seems, unlike
Re'm, that Rashi holds like the opinion that redemption is obligatory, and above too he learns that redemption is obligatory. You might ask: What is answered with this [Rashi's answer]? Is there any Jew who has no redeemer wealthy enough to redeem his sale? The answer is that Rashi means as follows: He has no closest relative who can redeem his sale, since the obligation lies [only] on his closest relative, and that relative is not wealthy enough to redeem his sale. (
Divrei Dovid) In
parshas Naso
(Bamidbar 5:8) Rashi asks this same question [regarding a case where there are no heirs to whom to return a stolen item], and he says that the verse there is speaking of a convert who has no heirs. That answer cannot be applied here in the case of an ancestral field, as a convert has no portion in the land of Yisroel. So answer
Gur Aryeh and
Maharan. I have difficulty with this, as a convert could own an ancestral field by gaining permanent ownership of a field he bought from a Jew in a walled city. [This could happen in a case where] he bought it from him and the seller did not come to him [to redeem] it within its [first] year, and it [then] belongs to him permanently. Then the convert left the field to his son who was born a Jew. This law would be applicable if the son of the convert sold [the field] to a Jew, as there would be no paternal relatives to redeem it. The answer is: Rashi prefers to learn the verse according to its plain meaning, as talking of a regular Jew [whose closest relative] cannot afford to redeem.